1.6 Demand in GST

PREFACE

I-6

error while citing case law, is that arguments of either sides are cited as ‘authority’ without showing that it had the Court’s approval. “When the answer is long, it is most likely wrong” is not a rule but it cautions against this common proclivity to submit reams of submissions without making a single clinching point. It may impress the taxpayer but only till it is summarily discarded in adjudication. Repetition and irrelevant case law citation are the hallmarks of a long and winded reply. Far more good can come from an ex parte order than elaborate submissions that may do disservice to taxpayers case which could be got just by ‘rejecting’ the allegations and ‘disputing’ the demand. After all, undisputed arrears do not require any further investigation or proof to support the demand. Decision to ‘accept and discharge’ or ‘dispute and litigate’ must be made by taxpayers and no one else. This decision is a commercial one, like all others in business and is taken, by weighing the pros and cons – likelihood of success, duration of litigation, potential interest and penalties, and cost of litigation. Another factor that is often not considered which can greatly alter the metrics to be weighed are – discrepancies and deficiencies in the notice – which are incurable and fatal to the demand. To know this, the decision (above) must be deferred until the notice is actually issued. And until the notice is issued, overenthusiastic response to preliminary enquiry can be counterintuitive, imparting more information than necessary to meet the ends of that enquiry. Remember, a question is often put not to be satisfied with the response but to collect the response and find fault with it. Specific Officers are designated with specific authority under specific provisions of the law. Just because all are ‘Officers of the law’ does not mean anyone can discharge anyone else’s duties. And when ‘who can do what’ is precisely stated in the law, it implies that ‘no one else but one, can do this’. It therefore demands to know ‘who’ can initiate enquiry about ‘what’. “Under which section?” is the key to knowing ‘who’, ‘what’ and therefore ‘how far’ does any enquiry go. Each provision of law lays down the extent of enquiry permitted and therefore indicates the extent of response merited. Taxpayers have come to believe that parading their innocence will suffice until experience teaches otherwise. Knowledge is to know what to say, wisdom is to know when. This is a work that draws from years of making mistakes so that no one needs to make the same old ones. Attempt is to prune these learnings and align them to the exacting standards of GST law in an attempt to ‘learn and share’ and not just explain the statutory provisions in simple language. And if the language is not simple enough, probably because the learning has not been so. Hope it helps!